2002 ANNUAL REPORT

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY

JUDGE WILLIAM H. PLATT PRESIDENT JUDGE

2002 ANNUAL REPORT

LEHIGH COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

INTRODUCTION

The Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, the 31st Judicial District, under the leadership of President Judge William H. Platt, is staffed by nine judges. In 2002, the Court was organized as follows: Adult Probation: Supervisory Judge Robert L. Steinberg Civil Division/Motion/Family Administrative Judge Thomas A. Wallitsch, Civil Court Division Administrative Judge Alan M. Black, Family Judge James Knoll Gardner Judge Edward D. Reibman Judge Carol K. McGinley Judge Lawrence J. Brenner Criminal/Juvenile Division: Administrative Judge Robert L. Steinberg President Judge William H. Platt Judge William E. Ford Juvenile Probation: Supervisory Judge Robert L. Steinberg Orphans’ Court Division: Administrative Judge Lawrence J. Brenner Judge James Knoll Gardner Judge Edward D. Reibman The Court was further staffed by Senior Judge John E. Backenstoe, Senior Judge James N. Diefenderfer, Senior Judge John P. Lavelle, and such other Senior Judges as assigned from time to time by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Senior Judges may work a limited number of days each year in order to assist the Court. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determines the number of days each Senior Judge may preside during a given month.

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

Courthouse Renovations

The long term courthouse renovation project, which includes the relocation of several judicial offices, progressed in 2002. The first floor was renovated and the Clerk of Courts, the Register of Wills, and the Orphans’ Court were moved back into the renovated space from temporary locations in the Government Center. Plans were made and funds budgeted for the creation of a courtroom for the tenth judge, who will take office in January 2004. Security was enhanced by the purchase and placement of two new x-ray scanners, one for each courthouse.

Videoconferencing

Videoconferencing units were obtained and installed in various conference rooms and hearing rooms in both courthouses. Emphasis will be placed on the use of these units for Juvenile Probation contacts with youths in state facilities, in an attempt to reduce the travel of employees to maintain contact with their clients.

Judicial Website The judicial website was completed in the fall of 2000 and went live in November 2000. It can be accessed at lehighcountycourt.org or at lccpa.org. It was significantly enhanced during 2001, by adding the judges’ calendar and making significant progress toward the addition of judges’ opinions to the website. The opinion piece was added to the website in 2002 and, late in the year, judges’ opinions were being posted to the website.

JUDGES’ BIOGRAPHIES PRESIDENT JUDGE WILLIAM H. PLATT Judge William H. Platt is a graduate of Emmaus High School, Dickinson College (A.B., Honors in Economics, 1961), and the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania (J.D., 1964). He served in the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from 1964 to 1966. From 1976 to 1991, he was the District Attorney of Lehigh County, and before that, the Lehigh County Chief Public Defender. From 1994-1996, he was the Allentown City Solicitor. Judge Platt has published numerous legal articles, including a practice handbook on Pennsylvania Eyewitness Identification. He was Chairman of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from 1986 to 1992, and a member of the Committee beginning in 1982. Judge Platt is a past president and lifetime honorary board member of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, a past president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys’ Association, a member of the National District Attorneys’ Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the Education Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges, and the Lehigh County, the Pennsylvania, and the American Bar Associations. He has been a member of the Executive Board of the Minsi Trails Council, B.S.A., since 1990, and, from 1991 to 1995, served as their legal counsel. Immediately prior to his election to the Court of Common Pleas, he was the partner in charge of the Allentown office of a Pittsburgh-based national law firm, a member of that firm’s litigation department and the Coordinator of its White Collar Crime Practice Group. Before becoming District attorney, he was in private practice with the late Howard Yarus, Esquire, from 1967 through 1976, in a firm which ultimately became Yarus & Platt. JUDGE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER President Judge James Knoll Gardner graduated from Yale University, magna cum laude, in 1962, and earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1965. He served on active duty with the United States Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps from 1966 to 1969. He served as Solicitor to the Lehigh County Treasurer from 1971 to 1977. From 1972 to 1977 he served as Assistant District Attorney of Lehigh County. From 1977 to 1981 he was First Assistant District Attorney. President Judge Gardner is on the Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Club of Allentown and the Allentown Police Athletic League. He is First Vice President of the Allentown Symphony Association. Currently he is a member of the Board of Associates of Muhlenberg College and the Advisory Board of the Minsi Trails Council, B.S.A. He is a member of the 15th Congressional District Military Academy Selection Board and the Yale Alumni Schools Committee. He is an Elder and Member of the Consistory of St. John’s United Church of Christ, Emmaus. He previously served on the Board of Directors of the United Way of Lehigh

County. Judge Gardner is a Past President of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. From 1985 to 1991 he served as Military Judge of Courts-Martial of the Armed Forces of the United States. From 1990 to 1991 he served as Commanding Officer of the Naval Reserve Trial Judiciary Activity. From 1992 to 1993 he served as an Appellate Military Judge on the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review. He is currently a retired Captain in the United States Navy Reserve. President Judge Gardner authored Apples and Oranges: A comparison of civilian and military trial courts, Federal Bar News and Journal, Volume 38, No. 4, May 1991. In 1972 he authored a Navy publication entitled “The Reservist and the UCMJ” (Uniform Code of Military Justice). President Judge Gardner was appointed Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in May 1981, elected in November 1981 and retained in November 1991 and in November 2001. JUDGE CAROL K. McGINLEY Judge Carol K. McGinley graduated from Manhattanville College in 1970 and earned a J.D. from Georgetown University in 1973. She was Chairman of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners from 1990 to 1992 and is a past president of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. She is a former member of the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline. She is the author of “Characterizing Police Encounters Under the Fourth Amendment”, published in the Search and Seizure Law Report, vol. 10, no. 8, September 1983. She was elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh County in 1985 and was retained for a ten-year term in 1995. Judge McGinley currently serves as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges Commission, as chairman of the Judicial Planning Committee of the Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, as Vice Chairman of the Supreme Court Juvenile Procedural Rules Committee, and as a member of the Chief Justice Emeritus Advisory Committee on Judicial Education. JUDGE THOMAS A. WALLITSCH Judge Thomas A. Wallitsch graduated from Dickinson College in 1970 and earned a J.D. from Duquesne University in 1973, where he served on the Law Review. In 1993, Judge Wallitsch received his Master’s in Governmental Administration from the University of Pennsylvania. From 1970 to 1978, Judge Wallitsch was a member of the United States Army Reserves, being honorably discharged with the rank of Captain. He served Lehigh County as the Solicitor to the County Controller from 1984 to 1987, as Assistant County Solicitor in 1976, and as Chief Public Defender from 1976 to 1981. Since 1994, Judge Wallitsch has an appointment as Adjunct Professor in Political Science at Muhlenberg College, teaching courses in “The American Judiciary” and “Public Administration”. He also served as an instructor in Criminal Justice Administration at the Lehigh Carbon Community College. Judge Wallitsch was certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and has served on the

Board of Examiners for that organization. He serves as co-chairman of the Education Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges and is a member of the Advisory Committee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Continuing Judicial Education. He also serves as a member of the STOP Violence Against Women Planning Committee of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. He was the first President of the Donald E. Wieand, Sr. American Inn of Court and has been active in various community service organizations including the Board of Directors for Lifepath, Inc., Allentown Liberty Bell Rotary Club where he served as President and Foundation President, and United Way. He was elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh County in November of 1991, and elected for a full term later that year. JUDGE EDWARD D. REIBMAN Judge Edward D. Reibman graduated from Lafayette College in 1969 and earned a J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1972. He served in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1969 to 1975. He was the Law Clerk to Honorable Bryan Simpson, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit (formerly 5th Circuit), 1972 to 1973, and a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice from 1973 to 1975. He served as President of Lehigh Valley Legal Services and Chairman of the Allentown Historic and Architectural Review Board. He currently serves as a trustee of the Swain School. He has served on the Ethics Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges since 1994. He was elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh County in November 1991, and retained in November, 2001. JUDGE WILLIAM E. FORD Judge William E. Ford graduated with honors from De Sales University in 1972 and earned a J.D. from Dickinson School of Law in 1975. He served as a Captain in the United States Marine Corps Reserve (JAG) from 1975 to 1979 and as an Assistant District Attorney for Lehigh County from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1991. Judge Ford also had a private civil practice, concentrating in defense litigation, from 1981 to 1991. He serves on the Board of Trustees and is an adjunct professor at De Sales University and Chestnut Hill College. He was elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh County in November 1991 and retained for a second ten-year term in November 2001. JUDGE LAWRENCE J. BRENNER

Judge Lawrence J. Brenner graduated from Saint Charles Seminary in 1959 and earned a J.D. from Villanova Law School in 1965. He served Lehigh County as an Assistant District Attorney from 1968 to 1976 and as the County Solicitor from 1983 to 1991. He served as the President of the United Way for Lehigh County from 1983 to 1985 and was appointed Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh County in July 1991. In November 1993, he was elected as a Judge for Lehigh County for a ten-year term. JUDGE ALAN M. BLACK Judge Alan M. Black graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1960 with distinction and earned a J.D. from the Harvard Law School in 1963. He served as the Solicitor for the City of Allentown from 1974 to 1977. He is the Past President of the Donald E. Wieand, Sr., American Inn of Court. He was formerly chairman of the Lehigh County Court Procedural Rules Committee and a mediator and arbitrator in Lehigh County and the Federal District Courts. He was also an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association. He is the President of the Adult Literacy Center of the Lehigh Valley and on the Board of Governors of the Civic Theater of Allentown. He is a member of the Allentown Rotary Club and a founding member of Confront, Inc., a Lehigh Valley drug rehabilitation organization. He is a former Secretary and Board Member of the Lehigh County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Board and a former Board Member of the Program for Women and Families, Inc. He is a former Legal Counsel and Vice-President of the Allentown Jaycees and a Past President and Board Chairman at Temple Beth El. He is a Past Vice-President and Board Member of the Jewish Day School of Allentown. He was elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh County in November 1997. JUDGE ROBERT L. STEINBERG Judge Robert L. Steinberg graduated from American University in 1973 and earned a J.D. from Western New England School of Law in 1976. Judge Steinberg served Lehigh County as a Public Defender from 1976 to 1978. He served in the District Attorney’s Office as an Assistant from 1978 to 1983, as Deputy District Attorney from 1985 to 1988, and as First Assistant District Attorney from 1988 to 1991. He served as District Attorney for Lehigh County from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of “Juvenile Court: Practice and Procedure”, published in the manual for Pennsylvania prosecutors, and “Mental Infirmity Defenses”, published by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. He has been an instructor for the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. He is the recipient of the Colonel John J. Schafer Award for excellence in law enforcement and was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor Ridge to the Victim Services Advisory Board. He was elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Lehigh County in November 1997.

CIVIL DIVISION/MOTION/FAMILY COURT DIVISION

The judges assigned to the Civil Division/Motion/Family Court Division, under the Administrative Judges of the Division, are responsible for the administration of civil and family law within the Court. Included within this division in 2002 were the Domestic Relations Section, the Child Custody Masters and Mediators, the Divorce Master, and the Protection From Abuse Office.

Civil Actions

Civil actions are those cases which, for the most part, involve the resolution of private conflicts between people or institutions. These cases may include personal injury or personal property claims, matters of equity, products liability, malpractice, or commercial and contract disputes. At the time a complaint is filed, civil actions are assigned to the judges in the division on an impartial rotational basis. The cases are assigned on the individual calendar system, which means that the same judge handles all aspects of the case from its inception to its completion. Most civil cases are scheduled according to a differentiated case management tracking system. This is a computer-assisted system which assigns procedural aspects of a case to a timeline or track, depending on the nature and complexity of the matter. In 2002, there were 338 trial ready civil actions filed and 448 were disposed of by the court. The cases disposed of in 2002 included some cases which were still pending from the 2001 inventory. The Civil Operations section of the Court Administrator’s office, under the supervision of Court Operations Director Kerry Turtzo, is responsible for scheduling, conferencing, and controlling all civil cases until trial begins. There are over 2000 cases pending in civil court, all requiring extensive and demanding preparation by the Civil Operations staff. After numerous pre-trial motions, arguments, and conferences, the case is termed “trial ready”. Trial ready civil actions pending for court remained steady in 2002, and the disposition rate increased by 7%. High disposition rates are indicative of very active participation by assigned judges through pre-trial settlement conferences, resulting in case resolution prior to trial date. .

Total Civil Division Trial Ready Cases

0200400600800

10001200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Cases Available Cases Disposed

The Arbitration Program The Arbitration Program is utilized to adjudicate those civil cases which involve an amount with a monetary total of $ 50,000 or less. A panel of arbitrators, consisting of three attorneys, is appointed by the Court to conduct a hearing and rule on each arbitration case. Either opposing party, if not satisfied with the panel ruling, may appeal the decision to the Court of Common Pleas, where a new trial will be held. The Arbitration Program has proven to be a very effective method of alternative dispute resolution.

0

200

400

600

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Civil Cases Arbitrated

Domestic Relations Section

The Lehigh County Domestic Relations Section, under the supervision of Director Rosemary C. McFee, consists of 21 conference and enforcement officers, and 47 full and

part time support staff. This office is responsible for the establishment and enforcement of orders of child support for the court. This may involve an initial determination of paternity, and then proceeds to determine parental ability to support their minor children. This process requires procedures for securing the financial support for those minor children and may include locating absent parents by nationwide searches if necessary. After the initial application, hearings are set by conference officers in order to gather information for the preparation of a proposed support order to be approved by the court. Support orders proposed by conference officers can be appealed to the court for hearing before a judge. Enforcement officers are responsible for insuring compliance with those support orders assigned to them and the appearance before the court of those failing to meet their support obligations. There are currently over 13,000 active support cases in Lehigh County. New filings increased by 8% in 2002, but this figure is more related to the maturing of the PACSES system than a change in workload. The Pennsylvania Child Support and Enforcement System (PACSES) is a state wide computer and check disbursement system. The system was implemented in 1998, and the difficult beginning has been resolved by an increasingly effective state-wide system. However, the criteria used to calculate the statistics in the PACSES system is different from the county criteria under its legacy computer system, resulting in some year end figures that do not appear consistent. This should be resolved in 2003, when the PACSES system will be generating the information to be gathered at state level by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. In November 1999, the Domestic Relations Section moved from the old quarters at 523 Hamilton Street to new leased building at 10 North 11th Street in Allentown. This move was accomplished efficiently and was the result of months of planning and preparation by all DRS employees. In 2002, this space was expanded to allow for the introduction of a Domestic Relations Master and the attendant hearing room, to allow for hearing of appeals from the conference officer’s ruling. The county process of child support is closely tied into the state Bureau of Child Support Enforcement. Child support case management and enforcement is concentrated and is managed at the county level. Payments are made to and disbursed from the state level agency, the State Central Disbursement Unit (SCDU).

02000400060008000

10000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

New Domestic Relations Support Cases Annually

Domestic Relations is responsible for the collection of support funds from the defendant in the action and disbursement of those funds to the plaintiff. In 2001, the total amount collected and then disbursed to the plaintiffs was $ 38,841,764. In 2002, that figure was $ 43,312,541.

Child Custody and Visitation

The Child Custody Office, under full-time Master Nancy A. Longenbach, Esquire, assisted by part-time Master Judith A. Dexter, Esquire, is responsible for cases involving legal and physical custody of children, visitation of parents and grandparents, and modification and contempt of custody agreements. In 2002, they were assisted by Family Court Masters Allen I. Tullar and John E. Roberts III. The Masters hold settlement conferences to encourage adoption of an agreement which is acceptable to both parties. The Master may enter a court order for approval by a judge in partial custody cases, and most cases are settled in this manner. Full custody cases and appeals from a custody order will be heard before a judge. New cases increased by 10% in 2002, but the overall caseload has increased by 40% since 1994. The case disposition rate has increased by the same proportion during that time period, and increased 8% in 2002 alone.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Child Custody Cases Annually

New Cases Cases Processed

In 1995, the court instituted a custody mediation program, and in 1997 required participation by custody clients unless specifically exempted. Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process in which the parties meet with an experienced mediator to resolve custody issues. In many instances, this process is preferable because it removes the parties from the adversarial process and encourages cooperation. The mediator’s role is to assist the parties in identifying and resolving the issues so that an agreement can be reached. The court’s current staff consists of four mediators, Deborah R. Gaber, Esquire,

Don S. Klein, Esquire, Joanne Fossett, LSW, and Susan Smith, LSW. All mediators have received extensive training in mediation and have been very effective in resolving custody case issues. In 2002, 1000 cases were scheduled for mediation and agreement between the parties was reached in 359 cases.

Divorce Master The full-time Divorce Master, John E. Roberts III, Esquire, is responsible for initially hearing any contested divorce action. A contested divorce filed with the Master will have an initial conference and a settlement conference upon request of either party. A pre-trial conference will be held prior to the scheduled Master’s hearing. The Master can order discovery, and can rule on any contested action, to include the divorce, the date of separation, economic claims, and alimony. Based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the Master will generate a recommended order for the court. Any exceptions to the Master’s order may be appealed to the court for resolution. In 2002, there were 3046 cases before the court, with 2048 carried over from 2001, and 998 added in 2002. A total of 1125 divorce decrees were issued in 2002, and of those, 89 had been to record hearings before the Master.

Protection From Abuse Program

The Protection From Abuse Office, under the supervision of Sylvia Paz, is responsible for assisting persons filing under the Protection From Abuse Act (PFA). The PFA Office staff prepares petitions and court orders, schedule hearings, escort the petitioners to court, and process court orders. The Protection From Abuse Office disseminates information to victims about other agencies and services available to them. It refers to and receives referrals from agencies such as Turning Point, the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth, the Area Agency on Aging, and the CALM program of the Program for Women and Families. The PFA Office received 1359 new cases in 2002, and 148 were carried over from 2001, for a total of 1507 before the court. Of these cases, 235 final orders were issued, 630 cases were dismissed for cause, 105 were withdrawn prior to a hearing, 350 were agreed to by the parties before the final hearing, and 37 were dismissed when the plaintiff failed to appear in court. There were 150 pending cases at the end of the year. The PFA Office is one component of the Lehigh County consortium of the judiciary, government and private agencies, law enforcement, and the district justice system, which strives to eradicate domestic violence in the community.

CRIMINAL/JUVENILE DIVISION The judges assigned to the Criminal/Juvenile Division, under the Administrative Judge of the Division, are responsible for the administration of criminal and juvenile law within the court. In 2002 there were 4545 adult criminal cases and 1487 juvenile cases filed or re-opened in Lehigh County. The court disposed of 4506 adult and 1552 juvenile delinquency cases in 2002.

Most years since 1994 have seen increases in the number of adult criminal case filings. There was a 3% increase in new cases in 2002 and an increase in the disposition rate of 4%. Three judges were assigned to the Criminal/Juvenile Division in 2002, responsible for criminal cases, summary case appeals, and juvenile delinquency cases. Homicide cases are divided among all nine active judges, and certain matters, including probation and parole violations and Post Conviction Relief Act matters, are referred to the judge who initially heard the case, even when that judge is currently serving in another division.

010002000300040005000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Annual Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions

New Cases Cases Disposed

Adult Probation

The Lehigh County Adult Probation and Parole Department is a department of the Court of Common Pleas, reporting to the Supervisory Judge responsible for Adult Probation activities. The function of this department is to supervise adult offenders placed on probation or parole. In addition to supervision services, the department is responsible for completion of pre-sentence reports and pre-parole investigations. This information provided to the court allows planning of treatment programs and appropriate sentencing

of offenders. The community corrections policy followed by Adult Probation is a balanced approach called Restorative Justice. Although community protection through traditional community based casework and surveillance supervision remains a high priority, offenders are also required to acquire specific skills through educational and job readiness programs. This program also makes them accountable for the satisfaction of financial liabilities such as victim restitution and fines and fees. Adult Probation and Parole also participates in a collaborative program with the Lehigh County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Office called the Special Program for Offenders in Rehabilitation and Education (SPORE). This program was created to deal with the special conditions created when criminal offenders, whether adult or juvenile, have been diagnosed with mental retardation or mental illness. As of December 31, 2002, the department’s total caseload was 4,155, a decrease of 5% over 2001. There were 3,808 investigations and reports completed, a decrease of 4% over 2001 and broken down as follows:

♦ 712 pre-sentence investigations ♦ 1,135 pre-parole investigations ♦ 1,396 Court Reporting Network evaluations (DUI offenders) ♦ 155 psychiatric evaluations (SPORE) ♦ 39 psychological assessments (SPORE) ♦ 371 drug/alcohol assessments (Restorative Justice grant)

Major accomplishments during 2002 included the consolidation of all Intermediate Punishment Programs under one adult probation officer and supervisor; the implementation of the grant-funded Police/Probation Partnership; development of a contracted anger management program through Restorative Justice; expansion of the grant-funded Treatment Continuum Alternative Project (TCAP); and the formation of the Lehigh County Criminal Justice Advisory Board. In addition, the department was found to be in 100% compliance with all applicable American Correctional Association standards during an annual audit conducted by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in June 2002.

Juvenile Court

Juvenile Court, under the authority if the Administrative Judge of the Criminal/Juvenile Division and the Administrative Judge of the Civil Division/Motion/Family Division, is responsible for cases involving juvenile delinquency and juvenile dependency. Delinquent juveniles are those under the age of 18 who are in violation of criminal law. Dependent juveniles are children who are, or who have been, subject to abuse or neglect. Action before the court is initiated by the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services or the Lehigh County Juvenile Probation Department. Delinquency cases referred to a judge are part of the Criminal/Juvenile Division, while dependency cases

referred to a judge are part of the Civil Division/Motion/Family Division. The Juvenile Court judges are assisted by three Juvenile Masters, Theresa M. Loder, Esquire (full-time), and Stephen A. Lanshe, Esquire and Jacquelyn Paradis, Esquire (both part-time), who adjudicate both delinquency and dependency cases.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1995 196 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Juvenile Case Annual Filings

Delinquency Dependency

Juvenile Probation The Lehigh County Juvenile Probation Department is a division of the Court of Common Pleas, reporting to the Supervisory Judge responsible for Juvenile Probation activities. The department, under the supervision of Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Paul J. Werrell, is responsible to the court and the community for delivering necessary and appropriate services to those juveniles referred to the department. The jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court and the Juvenile Probation Department extends to both “delinquent” and “dependent” children as defined in the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, Section 6302. In light of the mandate of this Act, it is essential for the Department to have operational principles to guide its decision making and delivery of services. Accordingly, operational procedures have been formulated to coincide with “The Balanced Approach” principles:

1. Community Protection-- residents have a right to live in a safe and secure community. Decisions made by a Probation Officer should be designed to insure community protection.

2. Accountability-- every juvenile offender is to be held accountable for his or her actions and behavior. When a juvenile commits an offense against a person or property, the juvenile incurs an obligation to the victim of that offense. Victims are to be compensated by the offender as a rehabilitative measure.

3. Competency Development-- offenders should ultimately leave the Juvenile Court system more capable of living productively and responsibly in the community. The Department will provide skill development techniques for living, learning, and for creating work skills.

Records for the Department indicate 1069 referrals from criminal justice agencies in 1990, with 1565 referrals in 2002. This is about a 32% increase in ten years. The number of juveniles on probation during the year 2001 averaged 1187 per month. The characteristics of juveniles committing crimes today have changed dramatically over the last few years. In many cases, they are more criminally sophisticated, more violent, more emotionally disturbed. In addition, many border on illiteracy, have been victims of abuse, and come from dysfunctional families. All of these traits tend to increase the difficulty of the Juvenile Probation officer’s caseload.

ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION There are currently six judges, including an Administrative Judge, assigned to the various matters within the jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court Division.

The Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas is under the direction of the Director of Orphans’ Court Operations, Janet T. Woffindin, Esquire, and the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court, Barbara A. Stoneback. Unlike the other divisions, Orphans’ Court hears many matters that are non-adversarial. Orphans’ Court is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the administration of decedents’ estates and trusts and the processing of adoptions, incapacity hearings, parental termination cases and miscellaneous disputes regarding those matters. The name Orphans’ Court is an anachronism derived from an era in which those persons who traditionally had no legal “voice”(minor children, widows, orphans, dead persons) required an objective entity (the Orphans’ Court) to “speak” for them and assure that their rights and interests were protected. Today, matters involving not-for-profit

organizations also come within the jurisdiction of the Orphans’ Court. In Lehigh County, settlement of lawsuits or claims involving minors and/or decedents’ estates must be approved by the Orphans’ Court Division to assure proper allocation of proceeds and preservation of monetary awards during minority. The Clerk of the Orphans’ Court is responsible for issuing marriage licenses upon “in person” application by the couple. In 2002, there were 2195 marriage licenses issued. During 2002, the Orphans’ Court audited 78 estates and trusts. It granted 101 adoptions and 50 children were made available for adoption following the termination of the rights of their biological parents. In addition, the court appointed guardians for 81 persons determined to be incapacitated and unable to manage their own affairs. Ten judicial bypass hearings were held pursuant to the Abortion Control Act. There were 115 restricted accounts approved for minors, together with a significant number of structured settlements, almost all resulting from settlement of civil litigation. There were 36 hearings held concerning contested wills, joint asset ownership problems, inheritance tax disputes, and other matters. A steady number of requests by adoptees for information about their biological parents were processed by the Clerk and the Director of Operations. With the advent of better search tools (including the Internet), more biological parents have been located than in previous years, and about half of those contacted agree to contact with adoptees.

0100200300400

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Orphans' Court Cases Annually

New Cases Cases Processed

DISTRICT COURTS

There are fourteen District Courts in the Thirty-First Judicial District that comprises

Lehigh County. They are courts of limited jurisdiction and are not courts of record, but often times are the courts with which the average citizen has the most contact. These courts hold trials on summary cases such as traffic violations, bad check cases, school truancy, underage drinking, and similar types of cases. District Courts can enter dispositions on cases graded up to a misdemeanor of the third degree and also for cases of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol which is graded as a misdemeanor two case.. In the area of civil law, district courts can hold trials on civil disputes with a maximum monetary limit of $ 8,000 (plus costs), in addition to disputes between landlords and tenants. These landlord/tenant cases can result in evictions of tenants from rental properties. In the more serious criminal cases, higher level misdemeanors and felonies, District Courts conduct the initial hearings, including preliminary arraignments and preliminary hearings. At the preliminary arraignment, the criminal charges are read to the defendant, the bail amount is set, and the District Justice assigns the preliminary hearing date. At the preliminary hearing stage, the court conducts a hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial. If so, the case is forwarded to the Court of Common Pleas, which is the court of general jurisdiction. If the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing does not support the criminal charges, the charges will be dismissed. The date of arraignment in the Court of Common Pleas is established at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing. The judges of the District Courts are referred to as District Justices, and are elected officials serving six-year terms. The District Justices are elected within magisterial districts, which comprise the geographic boundaries of their jurisdictions. Lehigh County contains fourteen magisterial districts. During 2002, the district courts of the 31st Judicial District underwent a constitutionally required reestablishment review. This review includes the evaluation of the district courts caseload filings, magisterial district population, and related issues to determine if there is an effective administration of justice in each judicial district. Approval for the reestablishment plan is under the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The approved reestablishment plan redistricted the Borough of Macungie to the Magisterial District 31-2-03. In 2002 the District Courts of Lehigh County had total case filings as follows: Summary Traffic Cases: 73,425 Summary Non-Traffic Cases: 15,279 Civil Cases: 7857 Criminal Cases: 7071 The district court offices collected over $1.47million in costs and fines in 2002. Part of this income included the collection of a designated warrant service fee by the District Courts that surpassed $ 298,511. The supervision of each district court is the responsibility of the elected District Justice, a

state employee. The employees within the specific office, however, are county judicial employees, and the personnel and administrative functions fall under the responsibility of the District Court Administrator, H. Gordon Roberts.

District Justices District Court District Justice

31-1-01 Richard A. Gatti 31-1-02 John E. Dugan 31-1-03 Michelle A. Varricchio, Esquire 31-1-04 David G. Leh 31-1-05 Carl L. Balliet 31-1-06 Thomas P. Murphy 31-1-07 Joan L. Snyder 31-1-08 Anthony G. Rapp 31-2-01 Senior District Justice Joan Hausman

31-2-02 Patricia Youkonis 31-2-03 Donna R. Butler 31-3-01 Edward E. Hartman 31-3-02 Charles H. Crawford

31-3-03 David B. Harding

Senior District Justices

Senior District Justice Joseph Maura Senior District Justice Joan Hausman

COURT ADMINISTRATION

The responsibility of the Court Administrator is to manage the non-judicial functions of the Court under the guidance of the President Judge. Judges are ultimately responsible for effective court management. However, the complexity of the modern court requires the delegation of administrative functions and responsibilities to the Court Administrator. The Court Administrator serves as an appointee of the entire Court but is subject to the supervision and direction of the President Judge. The Court Administrator must practice extensive managerial and administrative skills to serve effectively as the managerial arm of the Court. The Court Administrator serves the dual function of increasing judges’ time for adjudication by accomplishing the administrative functions of the Court, and by bringing professional managerial expertise to the administrative problems of the judiciary. Duties of the Court Administrator include personnel and fiscal management, calendar or

scheduling management, information systems and space and equipment management, records control, public information, and jury management. The District Court Administrator, Susan T. Schellenberg, and the Deputy Court Administrator, William B. Berndt, are responsible for supervision of all court-related departments of the Judiciary, to include Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, Domestic Relations, District Justice personnel, the Law Library, the Court Transcription Unit, and Court staff personnel, a total of 300 full-time employees.

COURT TRANSCRIPTION UNIT

The Court Transcription Unit, under the supervision of Supervisory Court Reporter Dolores M. Young and Assistant Supervisor Susan Sherry, has the primary task of recording proceedings before judges or other factfinders appointed by the Court. This task also includes the transcription of those notes taken during proceedings when a transcript is requested. The thirteen employees in this unit use both stenography and audio recording to perform the assigned task. Members of the unit are assigned to specific judges for a period of one year. Those who are not assigned serve in a pool. Pool members fill in for assigned reporters and monitors when needed and also provide support to senior and visiting judges. Since the adoption of this system, transcription backlogs have been substantially reduced and office morale and effectiveness have been improved.

JURY ADMINISTRATION

The Office of the Court Administrator is responsible for the effective management of the jury system. The jury system operation is supervised by Court Operations Officer Gayle Fisher, who coordinates the process of random juror selection and determines the number of jury panels needed each day. The reception and orientation of jurors, followed by selection and control of individual juries, is a process that requires continuing cooperation between the jury management staff and the judges’ staff personnel. The emphasis is on making juries available to those judges who may require them and to keep available only those jurors necessary for the accomplishment of this task. To this end, Lehigh County has adopted the “one day, one trial” method of selection to increase the efficiency of the jury system while making a minimal imposition in the lives of our residents. Citizens selected for jury duty will serve one day, or, if selected for a jury, will serve the duration of that trial. In 2002 the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas served 36,000 jury summons and called over 7,000 jurors for service.

LAW LIBRARY

The Lehigh County Law Library, now known as the Donald E. Wieand Law Library, is a county-funded resource offering full library services to the public, the bar, county employees, and the court. In the absence of local law schools, the law library of the Thirty-First Judicial District stands alone in providing legal research material in the local region. Founded in 1869, the law library has been located in the Lehigh County Courthouse since 1963. The law library collection consists of more than 28,000 volumes in traditional print, microform, and CD-ROM and online formats. This comprehensive library of Pennsylvania, national and federal casebooks, selected statutes and regulations, practice materials, treatises, and periodicals is supplemented by inter-library loan with other institutions. The library also offers on-line legal research through Lexis, Shepard’s Citations Online, and Westlaw. Through these services the law library may supply virtually any legal resource to patrons. The public records of Lehigh County offices are available in the library through the county’s computerized public access system. The law library is a lending library, a rarity among law libraries. The circulation system and the full featured public access catalogue are online. Library staff maintains great control over both locating sources in the collection and tracking of the thousands of volumes borrowed by patrons each year. In 2002, usage of the networked CD-ROM stations continued to increase. Although some 8,000 print volumes were returned to the shelves by library staff, 107,995 copies were printed from the CD-ROM network on the Law Library printer since April 2001. These statistics give only an indication of total activity in the library as many patrons reshelve their own books and print only a fraction of the material viewed on the computer. The year 2002 brought an increase in alternative delivery methods of material. Reference assistance is becoming “virtual” with questions and answers handled by telephone and e-mail. The law library provides extended hours of operation, remaining open four evenings a week. Library staff members are on duty whenever the library is open. The daily management of the law library is overseen by Lorelei A. Broskey, Director of Library Information Services, under the direction of the Court Administrator. A Law Library Committee meets as needed to approve major changes in policy. The Library Information Services staff also functions as the centralized purchasing and distribution office for all books and CD-ROMS procured for the Judges’ chambers and for judicial and county offices. Book requisitioning, bill preparation, and cataloging for more than 50 county and judicial offices are performed in the law library. In 2002 the library staff processed 1,862 invoices providing $ 296,000 worth of new legal resources to the public, the judiciary, and county offices. In 2002 the law library continued to deliver a growing selection of networked legal

products to court employees’ desks via cached CD’s on its networked server. The District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, the Clerk of Courts and other court related offices are also connected to the CD-ROM network. As well as functioning as the public workstations for the county public information, the six computers in the law library remain available for employees without PCs to access the Internet, the County Intranet and bulletin board, Word, Elibrary, the Lehigh County Rules of Court and the legal material. Library staff also provides first level computer technical support for many of the offices within the courthouse. Court-wide technological assistance, planning and maintenance and their related concerns is steadily on the increase for the Information Services division of the law library. Technological support and related training is a major component of law library services. Further reduction of print-based resources in the Judges’ Chambers and the law library is the focus of the future. Plans include migration to a user-friendly Windows based card catalog and circulation system.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 2001 Budget

Although it is not the function or mission of the Court of Common Pleas to generate revenue, the Court in 2002, nevertheless, produced significant revenue. The adopted 2002 budget for the Court of Common Pleas consisted of total revenues of $6,868,359 and total expenses of $19,108,070.

2001 Budgeted Court Revenue

54%8%

38%

Grants & Reimbursements Dept & Other Earnings Costs & Fines

Grants and Reimbursements: $ 3,663,695 Department Earnings, Other Earnings: $ 575,164 Costs and Fines: $ 2,629,500 Total $ 6,868,359 The Court places emphasis in pursuing federal and state grants in order to offset the costs of current or new programs. This grant funding is more available in the areas of Adult and Juvenile Probation, with concentration on creation of new programs and initiatives. Adult Probation receives state funding based on the amount of compliance with state-wide standards for probation operations. Currently the Lehigh County Adult Probation Department receives the maximum in state funding for compliance at over the 90% level. The Juvenile Probation Department works closely with the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth to produce a “needs-based” budget that attempts to maximize state assistance to the Court, in the form of services at state youth institutions and a funding stream to reimburse the court for some delinquent youth placement expenditures.

2001 Budgeted Court Expenditures

58%

14%

6%6%15% 1%

Personnell Ser: 58% PRF Tech Serv: 14%Mat,Supp,Contracts: 6% Other Oper Supp: 6%Capital Exp: 1% Indirect Costs: 15%

Personnel Services: $11,034,877 Professional & Technical Services: $ 3,029,023 Material, Operating Supplies, Contracts: $ 1,071,031 Other Operating Expenses: $ 981,580 Capital Expenditures: $ 180,857 Indirect Costs: $ 2,810,002 Total: $19,108,070 In 2000, a long term project was initiated to investigate improvements in the computer operating system used by the court, and this continued throughout 2002. The National Center for State Courts was chosen as the project manager for this endeavor and will guide the court through the process needed to update the operating system and database. This project will be a multi-year effort and will impact the capital budget for the next few years. The Law Library was enhanced by a county funded capital program designated for the purchase of a networked CD ROM server which allowed users in both courthouses and other county buildings to access those law resources available electronically. The long term goal is the reduction of high expense law resources in print form.